Finished American Creation by Joseph Ellis. An interesting read relating to the period from 1775 to the presidency of Jefferson. Several areas covered in the book were fascinating:

- the founding fathers failure to address the problem of native americans, slavery, the rights of women;
- the argument of states rights arose with Jefferson/Madison. Even 60 to 70 years prior to the civil war, these 2 individuals knew that under the Federalists/Alexander Hamilton/Washington, with their believe of a strong central govt., that slavery would eventually come to an end. Madison, initially, was a proponent of the federalist philosophy. However, he later changed 180 degrees to the anti-federalist or republican view., probably under the influence of Jefferson. Thus their Republican views would strengthen the states, hopefully promoting the southern agrarian/slave holding states.
- the formation of a two party system; Jefferson stated that "the president of the United States will only be president of a party." Rings true today as it did then over 200 years ago.
- Washington's attempt to settle the native american question with the treaty with Alexander McGillivray;
- Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase

In my opinion, states rights and slavery are intimately joined together and like siamese twins cannot be separated. Would welcome comments on this intriquing subject.

Been a while since we've heard from you DocC. Will hope you've just been busy.
- the founding fathers failure to address the problem of native americans, slavery, the rights of women;

At the time, these were not considered problems. They failed at a number of things, to be sure, but their aim was to form a nation -- not diddle with such minor things as Indians, slavery and the ERA. Just a thought.

I usually figure that their primary focus was to get a consensus of almost any kind they could devise. The agreement and coalition was the focus. If they had to give up some of what they personally wanted in order to get that next state -- so be it. The union was the focus. All in all, they did a pretty good job.In my opinion, states rights and slavery are intimately joined together and like siamese twins cannot be separated. Would welcome comments on this intriquing subject.
I don't see it the same way you've indicated. "State's rights" were loudly claimed, and the feds had no right to interfere in the state's right to keep the practice, but....

Only the Abolitionists and quieter citizens condemned slavery. None of them claimed that a state had no right to permit slavery. They pressed on moral grounds in that there were precious few legal grounds to pursue.

The way I see it, no state's rights were or were likely to be threatened. Lincoln's power was limited to the spoils of election: appointments. Lincoln-appointed postmasters and judges might have upset the applecart. No. It was simply a fear of what might be that gave rise to secession sentiments.

Ole said the first thing that came to my mind concerning the early points of your post far better than I could have : "At the time, these were not considered problems. They failed at a number of things, to be sure, but their aim was to form a nation -- not diddle with such minor things as Indians, slavery and the ERA. Just a thought."

However, as to the statement:

"Short observation: State's rights had nothing to do with anything."

Huh? My mind is boggling. I can't agree that. And, even if "It was simply a fear of what might be that gave rise to secession sentiments" the fear was still real, and was based in the reality of state's rights, and of how they could be diminished. Unless I am misunderstanding what you meant, Ole.

Good to see responses. To stir the pot - states rights had every thing to do with this country's founding. One key question - did the federal govt. have control over domestic policy, as preferred by the federalists. In the minds of Jefferson/Madison (republicans), if this occurred, slavery was doomed. Many Virginians were initially staunch federalists but with time they could see the proverbial righting on the wall if they continued their support of the federalist position. The establishment of banks by the federal govt. signaled to the republicans that the govt. could extend its authority wherever it wished, thus to slavery. Again, to the founders who had overall sovereignty - the state or the federal government??

Slavery and to a certain extent treatment of native americans were very much indeed considered problems during the this period. Benjamin Franklin urged congress to take up the question of the slave trade as well as the persistence of slavery itself in any self-respecting American republic. If Washington was not concerned with the rights of native americans, why would he have devoted so much his time while president on the treaty with the Creek Nation.

The founding fathers did "diddle" with the issue of slavery. Virtually all of the most prominent founders recognized that slavery was an embarrassing contradiction that violated the principles the American Revolution claimed to stand for.

I'm not arguing that the founders did not do a good job. Where did they come up with such a strange, at the time and still today, concept as the electoral college. However, their failure to address slavery or least adopt a gradual emancipation scheme lead to the civil war and the end of the institution of slavery.

Doc C wrote: Good to see responses. To stir the pot - states rights had every thing to do with this country's founding.Am more than glad to have a rip-snortin' discussion on something other than NASCAR, fat Santas, and miscellaneous idiots. I'm ready to be persuaded. Perhaps I misread your first post in that I was thinking CW as opposed to founding. Of course, the founders from each state were very much concerned with what they would have to give up to create a union. One key question - did the federal govt. have control over domestic policy, as preferred by the federalists. In the minds of Jefferson/Madison (republicans), if this occurred, slavery was doomed. Many Virginians were initially staunch federalists but with time they could see the proverbial righting on the wall if they continued their support of the federalist position. The establishment of banks by the federal govt. signaled to the republicans that the govt. could extend its authority wherever it wished, thus to slavery. Again, to the founders who had overall sovereignty - the state or the federal government??I'm confused on the time-line here. During the writing and ratification, how could they know that "banks....signaled...that the government could extend its authority wherever it wished, thus to slavery"?Slavery and to a certain extent treatment of native americans were very much indeed considered problems during the this period. Benjamin Franklin urged congress to take up the question of the slave trade as well as the persistence of slavery itself in any self-respecting American republic. If Washington was not concerned with the rights of native americans, why would he have devoted so much his time while president on the treaty with the Creek Nation.I wasn't saying Washington, as president, wasn't concerned with treatment of aboriginal peoples. But this is again a time-line thingy, How deeply was Washington involved in the writing of the Constitution? And slavery, while many thought it should be set on the road out, was accepted so as to get the southern states into agreement.The founding fathers did "diddle" with the issue of slavery. Virtually all of the most prominent founders recognized that slavery was an embarrassing contradiction that violated the principles the American Revolution claimed to stand for.

I'm not arguing that the founders did not do a good job. Where did they come up with such a strange, at the time and still today, concept as the electoral college. However, their failure to address slavery or least adopt a gradual emancipation scheme lead to the civil war and the end of the institution of slavery.As stated earlier, they tried. But it was either give up anti-slavery language or give up union. They opted for union and left the question for later generations, hoping that it could be resolved amicably. I can't fault the founders for not solving the question because I can't see what they could have written that the Old South would have accepted.
Just random thoughts.

Huh? My mind is boggling. I can't agree that. And, even if "It was simply a fear of what might be that gave rise to secession sentiments" the fear was still real, and was based in the reality of state's rights, and of how they could be diminished. Unless I am misunderstanding what you meant, Ole.
State rights was a catch-phrase, Joanie, that the secesh used to make more palatable what they were really agitating for.

Will agree that the fear was real in that the handwriting on the wall clearly showed an administration hostile to the peculiar institution. The ten percent of the population who based their lives on the production of bondpersons couldn't very well say "We want to keep our slaves!" That became an empty state's right sound bite to make it more palatable to the masses.

"Empty" because the feds had no real power to make a telling move against the practice. Lincoln knew it and insisted only on the fed's right to prohibit the practice in federally owned territories. Calmer southerners also knew it. Alexander Stephens among them.

Squalling about state's rights became empty upon insisting on their right to move slaves into states that had anti-slavery laws. Whining about state's rights became empty when they objected to another state's aversion to the Fugitive Slave Acts.

It was all about their right to keep slaves and their fear of losing it. It had nothing to do with the rights of a state existing within the constitution. Just lipstick on the pig.

Sorry I haven't been around here lately, but I'm in the process of going through (literally) about a thousand pages concerning my bio subject Everton Conger's suspension from the Montana Territorial Supreme Court in 1883.

Just to be lazy, let me say I agree with Ole. Maybe some day I can actually contribute something original.

booklover wrote: Sorry I haven't been around here lately, but I'm in the process of going through (literally) about a thousand pages concerning my bio subject Everton Conger's suspension from the Montana Territorial Supreme Court in 1883.

Just to be lazy, let me say I agree with Ole. Maybe some day I can actually contribute something original.

Best
Rob

Woof! Bet that takes up about as much time as you have to give. Meanwhile, I'll be waiting for news about Everton's suspension.

(of course, he won't be on my side, but that's why I'm paging him, an argument with The Generals, Pvt. Clewell and Ole, leading their ways is most exciting, and we haven't done it in awhile.

OK, Ole, typical northen propaganda

Ole, the victors get to write history to celebrate themselves. The slavery thing is a huge cross to bear, and Y'All know how I feel about that. As well as about poor men fighting the rich men's war, when it came to That Pecular Curse on Humanity as a cause.

Spent a long time researching Southerner's individual reasons for fighting the war, and the best reason I ever heard for that or any war was from a "cracker" whom said he was fighting "because You're here" (I cleaned up his accent a little, but added no words....

That aside, let's make it a little deeper than all those "preface cliches" that northeners write in thier books, showing that they would like to give some respect to The Confederates, while denigrating them all the same.

Gotta go cook dinner, back later, looking forward a hornet's nest,

General Private Clewell, come in, please...dang it, whose turn was it to watch him this time, he's probably reading relevant and important books now...

Just wanted to say, I have been coming and going quickly for the past several months, so I haven't had a chance to say "hello" and show my appreciation to many with whom I have joined in with or sparred with in the past. There are more than a few women on this board whom I greatly respect, and often are more than kind to me because our views might differ.

The only one I've encountered in our reparte's is Donna, to whom I have said hello again.

Miss Susan, I have been remiss in saying "hello" again.

The rest of you know who you are (and often have androgenous names, so I don't want to blow you covers to new-comers).

Just because I am posting here and there with feistiness, where The Guys are more easy coming back at me, dosen't mean that I don't miss and think of you all, and it is OK to argue with me, too!

Ole
"lipstick on the pig"
I have a little broader view of States Rights than this. Consider if you will that when the colonies won their independence from GB, they became Sovereign States. It was states that won independence, not individuals. In an effort to band together they wrote the Articles of Confederation which was a "mutual aid" compact of sorts, but again it was the "Sovereign States" who took this action. States joined together not individuals.

When the AOC was deemed inadequite and the delegates decided to scrap them instead of repairing them our constitution came into being. The document was ratified by the states, not popular vote.

Under the new constitution, the states elected senators, the people elected representatives,and thru the electoral college, a combination elected the president.

the 10th ammendment reserves power not specifically granted to the government to the STATES or the people.

States, under the federal system were strong entities having many powers and the implied right to use their powers.
One of the earliest state/federal dustups was over tarriffs, then central banking, then nullification and finally over slavery. Nullification was over tarriffs not slavery. IMHO tarriff fights were much more common than slavery fights particularly prior to 1850.

That states rights is seen as being synomous with slavery is as foolish as the battleflag is synomous with hatred... 'taint so

Ole, the victors get to write history to celebrate themselves. The slavery thing is a huge cross to bear, and Y'All know how I feel about that. As well as about poor men fighting the rich men's war, when it came to That Pecular Curse on Humanity as a cause.

And I'm using cliches? C'mon. The war has been over for a very long time. Since then the history books have been rewritten several times by both the victors and the losers. Among the stable of published historians, name one who writes with a bias.

Thank you Don
Ole, you are welcome to argue, but rather than argue, show me where I am wrong. I beleive you will have a little difficulty with that task..... unless of course, that you want to argue that I really can spell the big words..

Rather than by popular vote the constitution was ratified by state conventions. It was in these state conventions, especially Virginia, where the real debates occurred.
Not the way I remember it Doc, but I have been wrong berfore. Will try to find time to look it up.